Is music really subjective?

[Nigh Invulnerable]

As has been said, I think technical skill can be somewhat objective to judge, but when it comes to saying a particular piece of music is somehow better than another it's all a matter of taste. I know lots of black metal fans, and while I can stomach a few songs from the genre, I mostly find it pretentious and annoying. These same people probably think my preference for Primus is silly.

Along my first point though, Steve Vai and Yngwie Malmsteen are impressively technical and play absurdly difficult compositions with seeming ease, but they're boring as he'll to listen to for long.

 

[AgentNein]

technically speaking, music is objective.
If you look at the basic form of it without all of the bling, you'll learn that it is objective.
The first thing you learn in the subject of harmony is the Intervals that create Chords. These Intervals are divided into two groups - Cossonant and Dissonant. Cossonant are nice to hear while Dissonant usually sounds like two cats trying to kill each other.
If you string them together in the best way humanly possible (with other supporting roles, themes and rythem) you have the greatest music ever created.

...and then there will still be those folks out there who think that it sounds like rubbish.

And anybody who tells them that they are wrong for that thought is an idiot.

Not saying that I completely disagree with you. Actually I believe it pays to be informed, in both musical theory, the history of the music you want to make and where that history has led to. To clarify on that last bit, I believe musical genres and the history of those genres are like a conversation. One musician says "this" with this piece of music, another "responds" by taking that first piece of music as inspiration in some way and so on. Some people that take part in this conversation will be ignored, some will grab other's attention. If I want to make good, relevant rock and roll (wide net I know), I'd do myself well to view this "conversation" closely from the beginning up to it's current point, otherwise I'd be that asshole jumping into a conversation in the middle without knowing what the hell I'm talking about, if that makes a lick of sense.

So yeah, I don't think it's possible to make objectively "better" music than any other music, I DO think it's possible however to make music that is more... "well informed" one might say.

 

[Tharwen]

Oh. I was expecting something about the meaning of a specific song being able to be interpreted in several different ways. Oh well, I'll just talk about that anyway:

I think the meaning of music should be absolutely subjective. After all, it is, essentially, a product. The customer is ultimately the one who decides what to get out of it, so however much the creator wants to express something through it, it is the listener who can choose to read that message or not.

 

[Der Kommissar]

technically speaking, music is objective.
If you look at the basic form of it without all of the bling, you'll learn that it is objective.
The first thing you learn in the subject of harmony is the Intervals that create Chords. These Intervals are divided into two groups - Cossonant and Dissonant. Cossonant are nice to hear while Dissonant usually sounds like two cats trying to kill each other.
If you string them together in the best way humanly possible (with other supporting roles, themes and rythem) you have the greatest music ever created.

I find this is heading to the right direction. These days I dare to venture to say music is not only objective but empirical as well.

 

[linwolf]

It must be there a music the I see as a crime against humanity and people still buy it.

It's not just music preference that's subjective. Art is subjective as well.

Sorry but there is something called composition, every master painters who are well known have very strong compositions in their work, and if you put it next to an amateurs piece of work, youll quickly notice how the amateur is lacking in their composition.

And yet there are a lot of master painters that if it wasn't for the price of their work I would throw it out.

Well that just makes you unappreciate of everything the great painters put into their work.

Yes of course I don't appreciate something if I find it boring, bland, ugly and useless.

 

[bob1052]

There are many ways to view music.

You can objectively look at a songs mechanics or you can look at what you like.

I recognize that Jay Z is an incredible lyricist, but I don't now, nor plan to listen to any of his music.

 

[0mn1p0t3ntg6y]

It's art. Art is supposed to be beautiful. And, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, music is therefore subjective.

 

[DustyDrB]

Yes. That's part of the beauty of it.

 

[meticadpa]

It's art. Of course it's completely subjective.

 

[The Wykydtron]

[HEADING=2]Objection![/HEADING]


This is my proof Your Honour! All art is subjective and music is a form of art!

Don't ask me why my Objection! Decided to be blue instead of red, some Blue Truth at work here perhaps?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Subjective: Whether or not you think the music is good
Objective: the skill required to perform or create said music

Jimi Hendrix was objectively a very very skillful guitar player. Whether or not you think his music was "good" (in this case good, as in you find it enjoyable), is a matter of taste.

This, while there are certain musicians where you have to concede that they are skilled, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll like their compositions. In other words yes, in my subjective opinion I believe music to be subjective.

 

[Angerwing]

Enjoyment is subjective.

But technical skill, and the theory behind it is very objective.

For example:


is a very technically impressive piece of music. That doesn't mean many will enjoy it. I happen to, but that's just me. I can understand people not appreciating it.

 

[warprincenataku]

Of course it is subjective. Metal sucks! You may like it, but I don't. That's subjective.

 

[A Weary Exile]

I see Mike Patton's work as a perfect example of how subjective music can be.

Spoiler: This is what I mean. It's the kind of music that you will either love or hate.

I'm seeing more and more Mike Patton fans lately, makes me a happy camper. ;D

Music is absolutely subjective. I really don't have much to say other than that. :l

 

[badgersprite]

A child banging on a piano with no sense of what notes even are might be considered objectively bad music, but that child probably likes the sound they're making, so who's really to say?

 

[Furious Styles]

There are some bands/songs/artists that are undisputably great, such as The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and The Beatles. Mostly, however, it is subjective.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It is hugely subjective, but theres still music and bands that are definitively good (Pearl Jam, Rolling Stones, The Beatles etc) and theres still music and bands that are definitively bad (Most forms of pop/rap/whatever and almost every band formed in the 20th century)